Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Nuclear war against Iran

457 posts in this topic

@ Pirulero

Are you against the UN Security Council reviewing the matter at all?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) ok so i stayed up a few minutes...

 

I'm not against it at all, but it is a big escalation of matters, especially in the circumstances. As i said, I believe the US and UK pushed for the sec. council to be involved early on as it would provoke an equally rash response from the Iranians. It was simply antagonistic, and it worked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I disagree. I think it is good for the Sec. Council to get involved early, as other options failed. IMO the Iranians are the antagonists here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as I'm concerned, NK is China's problem.

 

Let china deal with NK - let it consume their diplomatic band-width.

Blimey Bumpy. Very intelligent. You should apply to work in US Intel and kick out some of the wasted space they have employed. I'm impressed. Right now some agent in Beijing has probably read your idea and uttered under his breath, "Shit! They're on to our gameplan." because they've undoubtedly had a few chuckles and sniggers at the way we used up our diplomatic band-width over the past decade or so.

 

...and while we're on the subject: BadBob. Is that really you? ...actually debating? If it is, a Happy Easter to you, and to the rest of you. Don't start any wars while I'm away, eh? ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's me. Now have a fuckin' 'appy Easter. ALRIGHT!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I went and bought a tie for easter, and a shirt with a collar. Happy easter everyone.

Chocolate, were they?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@euro

Don't get me started about your 9/11 conspiracy theories and "Bush knew." Put that in another thread. Everyone knows how Clinton fucked-up by refusing bin laden three times when Sudan offered him to the US, the Gorelick memo and the wall and how he took no action after the 1st World Trade Center strike in 93, not to mention the embassy attacks and the attack on the USS Cole. Try to stay on topic.

Yeah, that is BadBob and the debating part is definitely a new aspect to his online presence.

Can you prove that Sudan offered him up? I have seen no credible evidence of this and have only heard that the Saudi's would not let him back into their country.

Clinton did take action on the '93 bombing and the USS Cole report came when Bush was in office and Bush did nothing about it.

 

Iran is a hell of a mess and the first thing to do is to pull back out of Iraq and set up Qatar and Kuwait bases to pounce if all hell breaks loose. Diplomacy needs to be a worldwide concerted effort on the question of weapons and not on the question of power. They have the right to nuclear power and we can't dictate otherwise. Just as we don't want to be dependent on other countries, they don't either. The oversight of nuclear energy is a question that can be worked out to a suitable conclusion, but we can't go into negotiations demanding the unacceptable and through a third party to boot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Iran is a hell of a mess and the first thing to do is to pull back out of Iraq and set up Qatar and Kuwait bases to pounce if all hell breaks loose. Diplomacy needs to be a worldwide concerted effort on the question of weapons and not on the question of power. They have the right to nuclear power and we can't dictate otherwise. Just as we don't want to be dependent on other countries, they don't either. The oversight of nuclear energy is a question that can be worked out to a suitable conclusion, but we can't go into negotiations demanding the unacceptable and through a third party to boot.

I thought you were of the opinion that all hell is breaking loose now and that Iraq is in a civil war? So what sense does it make to "back out" now? So are you contradicting yourself now and saying that all hell is not breaking loose in Iraq? Oh, yeah, this is a different day, the wind has shifted, and another flip-flop.

 

I think that at present, diplomacy is a worldwide concerted effort. The problem is Iran ain't listening.

 

1st, Iran does not need nuclear power in the propotions they are talking about developing since they have all the oil in the world and stone-aged infrastructure. So why 50,000 centrifuges if not for a bomb? They have kept this program secret for at least the last two decades, even though they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody trusts them.

 

Third party? Who is that? The EU3? The Russians? IAEA? UN? Security Council? These are 3rd parties that so far have failed. Iran simply does not want to negotiate with anyone now. This isn't a US v. Iran situation. It's Iran v. the entire international community.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Iran, being a producer country (and as far as i know, not a memeber of OPEC) know the limitations of oil as a resource and so are looking into alternatives...

 

as for Iran being a "hell of a mess", what is that based on exactly?

 

and 50,000 centrifuges is a miniscule number for a weapons porgramme and would "churn" out on average one extremely low-yield weapon every 15 years or so...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil war is breaking out, but that is far from all hell breaking loose. If we weren't preoccupied with Iraq, we would be in a better position to apply pressure. As for the whole world in a concerted effort, we aren't even close to that.

The fact that Iran wants nuclear energy is more telling to their reserves. Nobody, but nobody knows how much oil reserves the OPEC countries have and perhaps Iran knows something that many think to be true and that is mainly that reserves are only 15 to 20 years worth and that the crunch will begin within the next 10 years. The argument that Iran has oil is a stupid one and only follows what the right wing media is putting forward.

If the world helped them to achieve nuclear power, but with the caveat that they stick to the NPT and allow inspectors, they would probably go for it, but only if the entire world spoke with one voice. We aren't doing that and Washington isn't listening to a country that is basically saying they don't trust their oil reserves or those of the others in OPEC. That too me is the scariest part of this and we aren't even discussing that aspect. Well, I am, but then again I wrote my Congressmen and said not to vote to give Bush a blank check on Iraq because I didn't believe they had WMDs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that Iran, being a producer country (and as far as i know, not a memeber of OPEC) know the limitations of oil as a resource and so are looking into alternatives...

 

as for Iran being a "hell of a mess", what is that based on exactly?

 

and 50,000 centrifuges is a miniscule number for a weapons porgramme and would "churn" out on average one extremely low-yield weapon every 15 years or so...

Iran is not in a hell of a mess, but the situation we are faced with is a hell of a mess. There is a difference.

 

Do you know anything about producing nuclear weapons? Seriously, do you or anyone here for that matter? Do you know what 50,000 centrifuges can do? Do you know what size of centrifuge is needed, the RCF needed, the difference between ultra, gas and high speed, what an Oak Ridge tube is or anything really about centrifuges in general that wasn't googled?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm Just to help you out. I will give you a hint: I grew up in Oak Ridge and have a clue.

 

Lets say that http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...atanz03_02.html is giving up the goods on Iran. Do you think that they would be stupid enough to only have this centralized facility knowing that a bombing mission would more than likely take it out in one blow?

 

The situation with Iran is a hell of a mess plain and simple and requires a hell of an effort to keep it from anything that resembles what happened with Iraq. I am just not sure that Bush is up to the effort or the intelligence to do it. This administration no longer has credibility with Congress or the American people. Bombing Natanz in the run up to the elections in November (or the threat of it) is all they got as plan B and everyone knows where plan B came from.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eurovol

 

I know we have had our differences, but whatever you are doing PLEASE STOP! Think of your family! Are you Drinking and Posting again? Do you actually read what you write? I hope you do when you wake up in the morning...or afternoon. Either that or you are really losing it. GET HELP! Maybe you got too much exposure living so close to Oak Ridge or something. But I will indulge you this time for your sake.

 

Civil war is breaking out, but that is far from all hell breaking loose. If we weren't preoccupied with Iraq, we would be in a better position to apply pressure. As for the whole world in a concerted effort, we aren't even close to that.

 

How is civil war breaking out different from all hell breaking loose? If, in your mind civil war is breaking out, why do you want us to leave and reestablish bases in Qatar and Kuwait and be prepared "to pounce" or go back in, when all hell is breaking loose? Wouldn't the civil war start and/or all hell break loose if we left in the first place? We would be in a better position to apply pressure? Didn't you just say in your last post that we shouldn't be pressuring Iran? If the US, UK, France, China, Russia, IAEA, UN is not a concerted effort in your mind, what the hell is? We are not even close to that?

 

The fact that Iran wants nuclear energy is more telling to their reserves. Nobody, but nobody knows how much oil reserves the OPEC countries have and perhaps Iran knows something that many think to be true and that is mainly that reserves are only 15 to 20 years worth and that the crunch will begin within the next 10 years. The argument that Iran has oil is a stupid one and only follows what the right wing media is putting forward.

 

Are you really trying to argue that Iran is low on oil, or running out? Your shrink won't even believe that and if you tell him, we will never hear from you again. Are you trying to say that the right-wing media is putting out propaganda saying that Iran indeed does have oil? That is fact. And in your mind, do you think that Bush and Halliburton would want to go into Iran if there was no oil there?

 

If the world helped them to achieve nuclear power, but with the caveat that they stick to the NPT and allow inspectors, they would probably go for it, but only if the entire world spoke with one voice. We aren't doing that and Washington isn't listening to a country that is basically saying they don't trust their oil reserves or those of the others in OPEC. That too me is the scariest part of this and we aren't even discussing that aspect. Well, I am, but then again I wrote my Congressmen and said not to vote to give Bush a blank check on Iraq because I didn't believe they had WMDs.

 

Iran? Stick to the NPT? They've been breaking the NPT since Jimmy Carter was president. And they already kicked out the inspectors. You say they would go for this? They already rejected it. That is the cause of this mess. They broke the NPT in many ways, especially with the aquisition of stuff from the AQ Khan network which, allowed them to develop the secret program that they now have. I think the world is speaking with one voice. Iran is telling the US they are running out of oil?

 

Iran is not in a hell of a mess, but the situation we are faced with is a hell of a mess. There is a difference.

 

What?

 

Do you know anything about producing nuclear weapons? Seriously, do you or anyone here for that matter? Do you know what 50,000 centrifuges can do? Do you know what size of centrifuge is needed, the RCF needed, the difference between ultra, gas and high speed, what an Oak Ridge tube is or anything really about centrifuges in general that wasn't googled?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm Just to help you out. I will give you a hint: I grew up in Oak Ridge and have a clue.

 

50,000 centrfuges is just for a start at a single plant. They have underground plants that have not been inspected. No one knows what's there. I think the Oak Ridge thing might be a cause of your problem.

 

Lets say that http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...atanz03_02.html is giving up the goods on Iran. Do you think that they would be stupid enough to only have this centralized facility knowing that a bombing mission would more than likely take it out in one blow?

 

No, I don't think they are that stupid. They have other facilities underground that they don't allow to be inspected by IAEA.

 

The situation with Iran is a hell of a mess plain and simple and requires a hell of an effort to keep it from anything that resembles what happened with Iraq. I am just not sure that Bush is up to the effort or the intelligence to do it. This administration no longer has credibility with Congress or the American people. Bombing Natanz in the run up to the elections in November (or the threat of it) is all they got as plan B and everyone knows where plan B came from.

Dude, I'm serious. Get some help.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state of Israel will soon be history, says Iran's President

 

I really wonder what this guy is doing. Is he all bluff, like Saddam, and hoping the US president goes and makes another idiotic decision? Or is he just a run-of-the-mill nutter rambling inanely about whatever will keep the ignorant masses voting for him? Either way he won't be invited to tea in the West any time soon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"President of Iran further fuelled the flames of confrontation with the West yesterday by saying that the “Zionist regime” in Israel would soon be annihilated"

 

I think that about sums it up..except for...is he a truly a dangerous man (or should I say pawn of the theocracy). Good move to announce your (supposed) nuclear capabilities and then also state that Israel will be "annihilated" all in the same week.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a satellite photo of the formerly secret Natanz site in Iran:

 

post-430-1145211775.jpg

 

Iran said today that it has 40,000 suicide bombers ready to strike at American and British targets if its nuclear facilities are attacked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So BOB are you actually agreeing that perhaps a dose of diplomacy is in order...or should we go for the preemptive F-U approach...bomb them... and unleash all those 40,000 willing to get their virgins ???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little worried sittin' here.

 

Who replaced BadBob? :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm all for diplomacy. It's just that in this case I don't see it working and don't put much faith in it. It is obvious to me that the Iranian gov't is doing all this sabre-rattling and trying to appear stronger than they are to test the West. In the meantime they are stalling as long as they can and continue to work on their program.

 

To deal with them, we must be in a position of strength. So talk, talk, talk, but we better be planning for a worse case scenario. This whole thread is about how the US plans to strike 1st. Damn, right. We should be planning. That's what the Pentagon does. Make plans in order to give the Pres options. Isn't everybody's critism of Bush is that he had no plan? Now he's being critisized by the press for making plans? He should be making plans. That's the responsible thing to be doing.

 

The ironic thing is that the people who are critisizing Bush, but default, support the terrorist Iranian regieme. Just read the posts. The Dems are setting themselves up to support failure.

 

That's another reason they lose elections. They've got a litany of complaints, but no solutions. They attack Bush, but actually support Iran? (And Bush isn't even running for re-election!) - They want to run against a candidate who isn't even running! - Who wants to support a party that hopes that we fail and cheers when we do? You can't get public support when your platform expects and rewards failure. It's just not American. Republicans plan to win (war and elections) and they do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0